Since the Continental Popular Consultation Campaign on the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) was launched at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in February 2002, more than 10 million Brazilians have cast their vote, of which more than 98 percent rejected the trade agreement. The remaining countries of the continent also launched their respective campaigns. In Mexico the process is underway in the states of Aguascalientes, Baja California Sur, Colima, Chihuahua, Chiapas, Mexico State, Federal District, Guerrero, Jalisco, Michoacán, Morelos, Nuevo León, Oaxaca, Puebla, Querétaro, Quintana Roo, San Luis Potosi, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Veracruz, and Tlaxcala.

In Chiapas, a committee comprised of indigenous and social organizations launched the campaign in San Cristóbal de las Casas on October 12, 2002, during the 1^st Chiapan Forum Against Neoliberalism. While the consultation is still underway, partial results compiled by the Chiapas Civic Alliance are already available. Once the process has been completed in the coming months the final results will be published in detail.

To date, the results of the consultation indicate that the government has not bothered to inform or consult 99.59% of Chiapans about the FTAA; 99.25% of participants reject the FTAA; 99.39% reject the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); 99.17% do not want the government to continue implementing the Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP); and 99.35% think that the condition of women does not improve as a result of free trade agreements.

Cited below is a passage from an act passed by the Assembly in a rural and indigenous community in the municipality of La Trinitaria:

“It is four p.m. on October 18, 2002. Gathered are all the men and women of this community’s ejido, where all speak openly and at the same time we inform the community about the National Popular Consultation on the FTAA and all the men and women of the ejido do not approve of any of the projects and treaties and in the questions we all said NO. We do NOT approve of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Nor do we approve of the free trade agreement. Nor do we approve of the mega-project Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP). In each of these issues, we do not approve of any of them and for this reason we affirm our definitive rejection.” (sic)

As of May 26, 2003, about 973 of these assemblies had been conducted in more than 1,020 communities, ejidos and/or neighborhoods, with the goal of conducting consultations in at least 45 municipalities, or 38% of all those in Chiapas. This participation and voting is qualitative, since the assemblies involve reflection, analysis and discussion among participants. The majority of the votes come from rural, indigenous and campesino (small and substistence farmers) communities. Among those municipalities with the greatest participation in the community assemblies is Chilón, where there have been 274 assemblies, followed by Ocosingo with 118 assemblies.

In the indigenous locality La Sombra, following a discussion about the role of transnational corporations and the Group of Eight (a group of the eight richest and most industrialized countries of the world that recently met in Stockholm), they developed their Act, which is reproduced below:

“The members of this community have come together to celebrate our General Assembly, during which we conducted the ‘National Popular Consultation on the FTAA,’ after consulting 29 people we are against neoliberal globalization and we reject definitively the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). In addition, we do not want Mexico to continue participating in the free trade agreement with the United States and Canada. We completely reject the Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP). No more plundering of our country’s riches by corporations! For this reason we declare that these grand neoliberal plans for us Mexicans will be a DEATH plan. Why? Because these 8 countries that are developed countries are only interested in world competition. They are not interested in benefiting our country. These grand plans, for us, will be a destruction and extermination because they only damage our biodiversity, which brings us misery, because these developed countries only seek to violate our rights as indigenous peoples and campesinos that were the first to inhabit this land. As there are no additional matters to discuss, this meeting is now concluded on the previously mentioned date.” (sic)

The municipalities that have participated to date are, among others: Aldama, Amatán, Altamirano, Comitán, Chalchihuitán, Chicomuselo, Chilón, Chenalhó, El Rosario, Frontera Comalapa, Huitiupán, Huixtán, La Independencia, La Trinitaria, Las Margaritas, Libertad de los Pueblos Mayas, Los Altos (San Antonio), Marqués de Comillas, Mitontic, Motozintla, Nicolás Ruiz, Ocosingo, Oxchuc, Palenque, Pantelhó, Sabanilla, Salto de Agua, San Cristóbal de las Casas, San Juan Cancuc, San Pedro Michoacán, Simojovel, Sitalá, Socoltenango, Tenejapa, Teopisca, Tila, Tumbalá, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Tzimol, Venustiano Carranza, Villa Las Rosas, Yajalón y Zinacantán.

In another indigenous ejido, following a debate about the consultation they developed their Act of Agreement, which is reproduced below:

“At 16:00 hours, four in the afternoon on October 24 of the year 2002, all of the men and women of the ejido mentioned above, in the ejidal house, this meeting is with the sole purpose to discuss the matter related to the problem that is happening in our nation, in our state and in our own region related to transnational projects that our Mexican government is permitting that affect our nation and our regions, such as the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas which causes the prices of our products to fall, the project Plan Puebla Panamá which includes the construction of hydroelectric dams in our region that will affect all of the lands that we cultivate will be affected, that is our only heritage in this life for our families, and as indigenous campesinos, for this reason we have decided men and women to cast our vote to unite together with other communities and as such, to be able to reclaim our rights in a peaceful and orderly manner. As there are no additional matters to discuss, this meeting is now concluded at 18:00 hours in the afternoon of the same day, month and year signed by all those who participated.” (sic)

As of the date mentioned above, a total 89,399 people have participated. 44,244 are women, representing 49.49% of the total. The municipality with the greatest number of votes is Chilón with 21,265, followed by Ocosingo with 13,542. In these municipalities, there was also registered the greatest participation of women. They are followed with the most votes by the municipalities of Sitalá (5,878), Tila (4,179), Tenejapa (3,411), Palenque (3,167), Yajalán (3,128), Las Margaritas (3,104), Chicomuselo (3,083), Chenalhó (2,653) y Tuxtla Gutiérrez (2,563), among others.

The Chiapas border region is plagued with military bases. Families emigrate to the United States to find work. Compounding the coffee and corn crises are threats against Zapatista autonomous communities and fumigations that, under the pretext of combating plagues, erode the food security of the population. In one of these indigenous villages, the inhabitants decided to get together to discuss the questions presented by the consultation. In their Act of Inconformity they said: “We have come together to put forth this document against powerful CORRUPT POLITICIANS who, thanks to our votes, have gained access to a high salary that is the people’s money and they do not even defend the neediest. Once they are there they forget everything. Here in the frontier region, which is directly in rural areas, they provide many public services such as: electric energy, drinking water, drainage, schools and more. The federal and state governments, in their labor report, say that there are already good schools in all parts of the country, they also say a lot about combating corruption when they come to visit Chiapas. If it were a government that defended its citizens, it would not privatize electric energy and education. We ask why it imposes on us PLAN PUEBLA PANAMA, the FTAA and why only in the border region with the United States the price of gasoline has fallen. Here in the State of Chiapas, on the contrary, it rises every month, as does the price of domestic gas. Here in the State of Chiapas there already exist 4 hydroelectric dams, then if we remain silent it would not affect us! The government wants to repress workers, campesinos, teachers and the entire population, as well as natural resources such as trees. For a campesino, if he cuts a tree: Be careful! On the other hand for the government, who continues to cut down trees, it has no value. We think the government should be combating malnutrition, poverty, etcetera, which have increased in the prices of the products of the countryside. In conclusion, if the government does not pay attention to us, we will join the struggle so that we can move forward, if not to REVOLUTION. Having no other matters to discuss, we put forth the present Act.”

In response to the first question of the consultation, Do you agree that Mexico should continue under the free trade agreement with the United States and Canada?: 88,856 said NO; 305 said YES; and 238 said DON’T KNOW.

In the indigenous community of San Antonio, following a community-wide reflection, they arrived at the following conclusion: “(…) all of the community members are present in a classroom at the rural school (…) in a ordinary Assembly in which the following points regarding Plan Puebla Panamá were discussed. We do not agree because we would be harmed, and we will not allow hydroelectric dams in our State because it is from the land that we receive our sustenance. We will also not permit the free trade agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada because it affects the price of our products and we will not permit the pillage of our natural resources. In order to approve this document we, the 108 community members present, sign.” (sic)

In response to the second question of the consultation, Have you been informed and consulted by the government about the negotiations to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)?: 89,035 said NO; 167 said YES; and 197 said DON’T KNOW.

 “Being five p.m. on Friday the 25^th of October of 2002, community members have gathered to answer the five questions regarding the National Popular Consultation on the FTAA where none of the five questions were we consulted and we do not agree that they continue imposing the free trade agreement and Plan Puebla Panamá.” (sic) Meanwhile, in a neighboring municipality another indigenous community held its consultation. In their act they declared that “We are completely against the continuation of the free trade agreement with the United States and Canada, since we as indigenous campesinos will not benefit at all, on the contrary, it hurts us in our jobs, products and trade, etc. And in the same way we are against the ex-presidents such as: Carlos Salinas de Gortari, Ernesto Zedillo and President Vicente Fox, they have given bad ideas, bad lessons to the Mexican people, corrupt people and thieves and equally Vicente Fox who currently governs Mexico: he has done things in secret to not take into account indigenous and non-indigenous people in the negotiations to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). On the other hand there is Plan Puebla Panamá, in which he has left indigenous and non-indigenous peoples aside and has not taken them into account in the projects of Plan Puebla Panamá, which instead of benefiting us will harm us all because we are not taken into account. For this reason, we campesinos oppose President Vicente Fox regarding the imposition of Plan Puebla Panamá.” (sic)

In response to the third question of the consultation, Do you agree that the government should endorse the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)?: 88,736 said NO; 330 said YES; and 333 said DON’T KNOW.

In an indigenous ranch in the municipality of Las Margaritas, the resolution that accompanies the community’s votes declares: “Being four in the afternoon on October 25 of the year two thousand and two. Gathered are the members of the aforementioned community in “Escuela Niños Héroes”. Where we learned about the FTAA. After analyzing the problem we arrived at an agreement to continue collaborating with other organized communities. We are 13 families, and we are not in agreement with the FTAA and Plan Puebla Panamá that the government is imposing on us (…) with no other matters to discuss this meeting was called to a close at six in the afternoon on the same day. We, the concerned, sign.” (sic)

In response to the fourth question of the consultation, Do you agree that the Mexican government should continue imposing Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP)?: 88,665 said NO; 371 said YES; and 363 said DON’T KNOW.

An Act of Assembly in a community in the municipality of La Independencia reads: “Being 7 o’clock on Friday, October 25, 2002, 92 women and 89 men are gathered to hold the National Popular Consultation on the FTAA. The following results were obtained from the 181 voters. In this way men and women gathered to demonstrate our great opposition to the Plan Puebla Panamá. Being 7 o’clock and 9 minutes on Friday, October 25, 2002, the present Act is brought to a close.” (sic)

Two months later, another rural community analyzed and reflected on the Plan Puebla Panamá. There, “gathered in the space occupied by the ejidal house of this community, are the citizens ejidal delegates, security council, auxiliary municipal agent and other assembly members, men and women, of this community, with the intention of informing about the government’s megaproject called Plan Puebla Panamá. The information about this mega-project is that powerful businessmen want to invest in construction of airports, highways, oil wells, hydroelectric dams, exploitation of natural resources, and more. The community completely rejects this PLAN, with the following considerations: a) that Plan Puebla Panamá involves the construction of hydroelectric dams that harm indigenous communities and lands (Quetzalli, Huixtán I and Huixtán II). b) It is a government project that is being implemented without consulting with society. c) That even with several hydroelectric dams in the State, our communities lack sufficient electricity and where there is electrification there are massive outages and no maintenance. d) That the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the United States, England, among others, invest in Plan Puebla Panamá in order to take control of the State and convert the population into peons, a source of cheap labor. e) That this Plan only benefits the rich, while the rest of society remains in extreme poverty. For these reasons we reject this rich man’s project and PROPOSE TO THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT: 1.- That Social Development Projects reflect the demands of the communities, asserted in various forums and manifestations. 2.- We propose that in these Projects health and education are made priorities, as they are the basis of the true development of our communities. 3.-Direct more resources and help to the countryside via the implementation of modern agricultural techniques, based in organic products with which the campesino can earn an income sufficient to provide a dignified life for the family. With no other matters to discuss, this meeting is called to a close (…).” (sic)

In response to the fifth question of the consultation, Do you think that the condition of women improves with free trade agreements?: 88,826 said NO; 274 said YES; and 299 said DON’T KNOW.

In the community of San Agustín, the community members declared that “this is why we declare via this document that this government program has not brought us any benefits; rather, we live in marginalization and poverty.” Not far from there, days later another community held its consultation. Gathered there were “all the community leaders as well as all the women and the young men and women, in the space occupied by the ejidal house.” The objective of the Act was to “declare that by voice and vote all of the community members are OPPOSED to the three levels of projects that the government is negotiating and doing all this against us, for this we pronounce our opposition that it will not benefit us at all, on the contrary it is already harming us. And we believe that in the future the grave consequences will be even more profound for all of the Mexican people.” (sic)

In conclusion, the San Andrés Accords signed by the federal government and the EZLN sum up the demands of indigenous communities. In an indigenous community they concluded their Act in this way: “Being 12 o’clock on Friday, October 25 the present act is elaborated that we are opposed to the plans that the government is doing, we are a group of 32 people (…). 1. We oppose the free trade agreement. 2. We oppose the Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP). What we want and demand is that the San Andrés Accords be carried out. We attach our responses to the five questions and we ask that this document be on record with the Municipal Agent with our signature and stamp.” (sic)

Despite what the communities say, our governments intend to continue with these “negotiations”, which more precisely are applications of rules developed by transnational corporations. American Express, Cargill, among other companies, have developed drafts of several chapters of the FTAA. The negative response by the Brazilian and Venezuelan governments has led the United States to accelerate the process of free trade agreements with individual countries. At the same time, the terrorist acts of September 11 have also led the North American government to accelerate its regional plans. Markets do not wait and the United States’ need to stimulate its economy has led it to call for a special Presidential Summit in Mexico in November of 2003. The anti-globalization movement is already preparing not only to protest at this meeting but also to develop a new continental social strategy in the 3^rd Hemispheric Meeting of the Fight Against the FTAA, to take place in Havana, Cuba, January 13-16, 2003.

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168